Dismissed

Dr. Tapan Biswas v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC8 Jun 2022WPA/18992/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged his failure in the FNB Exit Examination 2020, alleging improper evaluation. The single-judge bench applied prior precedent and dismissed the petition, holding that the examination rules barred re-evaluation and the court cannot intervene when such re-evaluation is not permitted as a matter of right.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 18992 of 2021 and Contempt Application No. 1 of 2022 were dismissed.

Dr. Tapan Biswas Vs Union of India and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

30 08-06-2022 AKG

¶2

Ct. 40

¶3

WPA 18992 of 2021 With CAN 1 of 2022

¶4

Dr. Tapan Biswas Versus Union of INdia & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Asok Kumar Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sanjib Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Aparupa Bhattacharya …For the Petitioner

¶6

Mr. Dibashis Basu, …For the Union of India Mr. Debu Chowdhury …For the National Board of Education

¶7

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though his client performed well in the written test of Fellow of National Board (in short, FNB) Exit Examination, 2020 conducted by the National Board of Examination, his answer scripts were not evaluated properly, as a result of which, he was shown ‘fail’ in the said examination. The petitioner is a brilliant student. There is no reason that he should fail in the examination. The petitioner has scored 44 out of 150 marks. The qualifying marks for the said examination were 50.

¶8

Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon paragraph 30 of the judgment reported at (2018) 2 SCC 35 ( Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. ) , where it has been held as follows :

¶9

“The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.

¶10

¶11

They are : (I) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed: (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption ; (v) In the event of a doubt the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

¶12

The information pertaining to the FNB Exit Examination clearly provided that there would be no reevaluation or rechecking/re-totaling of answer sheets and requests for re-evaluation/re-totaling should not be entertained.

¶13

I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the observations made in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) since in the present case, the relevant

¶14

¶15

rules prohibit re-evaluation or rechecking/re-totaling of answer sheets.

¶16

In that view of the matter, this writ petition being WPA 18992 of 2021 and CAN 1 of 2022 are accordingly dismissed.

¶17

(Kausik Chanda, J.)

Dr. Tapan Biswas v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Tapan Biswas v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Adhikari Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ujjal Mitra & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal

Bikash Talukdar Vs State of West Bengal

Soma Chowni Vs State of West Bengal and Another

Gopal Kumar Vs Vishwa Bharati and Ors.

Rahul Tiwari Vs Union of India and Ors.